We're hiring! Browse jobs and apply today.
Developed by occupational therapists to identify problems with sensory processing, bodily movement, and social participation among preschool children ages 2 to 5. The test authors suggest using the SPM-P when 5-year olds have not yet started kindergarten.
Home Form: 75 items
School Form: 75 items
15-20 minutes
Time estimate is per each form
2 - 5
yearsInitially reviewed by University of Illinois at Chicago Master of Science in Occupational Therapy students Julia Bates, Carol Brod, Louis Calderone, and Ariana Rodriguez.
SPM-P supports the principles of RTI and provides use in the field for evidence based practice and monitoring progress.
The SPM-P was developed and standardized in the United States with typically developing children. This could result in significant cultural bias.
Efforts to standardize the assessment with a representative sample of the United States population were taken, however there was an overrepresentation of parents with higher education status and SES (college degree or more), geographical distribution (majority from the Midwest), and two-parent households.
Only 25 percent of the sample size identified from a cultural or ethnic minority background, and male children outnumbered female children two to one.
Information was not included about whether standardization population was from rural or urban settings, which could result in an additional geographical bias.
Normative Sample: (Glennon, Miller Kuhaneck, & Herzberg, 2011)
95% Confidence Intervals for Scale T-Scores Based on Two Reliability Methods
Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) T-Scores
Scale
Test-retest Reliability
Internal Consistency
Home Form
Social Participation (SOC)
2.59
3.26
Vision (VIS)
2.93
3.94
Hearing (HEA)
2.59
4.06
Touch (TOU)
1.35
4.31
Body Awareness (BOD)
2.76
4.60
Balance & Motion (BAL)
2.70
4.40
Planning & Ideas (PLA)
2.07
3.94
Total Sensory Systems (TOT)
1.84
2.54
Main Classroom Form
Social Participation (SOC)
2.76
2.54
Vision (VIS)
2.65
4.20
Hearing (HEA)
2.74
4.10
Touch (TOU)
2.46
4.36
Body Awareness (BOD)
1.82
2.84
Balance & Motion (BAL)
2.32
4.54
Planning & Ideas (PLA)
2.48
3.49
Total Sensory Systems (TOT)
2.01
2.46
Note: SEM = standard error of measurement.
Cutoff score of T = 60: (Glennon et al., 2011)
The Home TOT (Total Sensory Systems) scale demonstrated sensitivity of 0.64 and specificity of 0.84. In other words, 64% of children with sensory processing disorders had Home TOT T-scores of 60 or higher, and 84% of typically developing children had T-scores of 59 or less.
At T = 60, the School TOT scale had sensitivity of 0.52 and specificity of 0.82.
U.S. Typically Developing Children and Children Receiving Occupational Therapy: (Glennon et al., 2011)
SPM-P is based on a nationally representative sample of 651 typically developing and 242 children receiving occupational therapy intervention aged 2 to 5.
U.S. Typically Developing Children and Children Receiving Occupational Therapy: (Glennon et al., 2011)
SPM-P School and Home forms test-retest reliability was found to have excellent stability using over a two-week time period (r > 0.90).
U.S. Typically Developing Children and Children Receiving Occupational Therapy: (Glennon et al., 2011)
Adequate internal consistency of SPM-P Home Form (Cronbach's Alpha ≥ .80)
Adequate internal consistency of SPM-P Classroom Form (Cronbach's Alpha ≥ .80)
Convergent:
U.S. Typically Developing Children and Children Receiving Occupational Therapy: (Glennon et al., 2011)
Convergent validity study: 137 children (90 boys, 47 girls) for Short Sensory Profile Total score and 105 children (74 boys, 31 girls) for the other Short Sensory Profile scales.
All correlations greater than 0.19 are statistically significant
Total scores of two measures correlate very strongly (r = 0.62), which exceeds threshold for large effect size
Correlations greater in magnitude for Short Sensory Profile scales that share content similarity with SPM-P Home Form scales
Convergent validity study: 62 children (42 boys, 2 girls) performed using Infant/Toddler Sensory Profile (overlaps with SPM-P for 2-year-olds
All correlations greater than 0.24 are statistically significant.
Correlations between two measures are generally strong, but less specific than is optimal for convergent validity.
Convergent validity study: 20 children (16 boys, 4 girls) with scales from School Companion
Findings generally support convergent validity.
Discriminant:
U.S. Typically Developing Children and Children Receiving Occupational Therapy: (Glennon et al., 2011)
The tool is able to distinguish between typically developing children and those with disorders.
all effect sizes exceed threshold for medium effect (0.50) and all but five exceed threshold for large effect size (0.80).
The SPM Standardization Study: Clinic-referred Children Receiving OT Services versus Typically Developing Children: (Glennon et al., 2011)
SPM-P items derived directly from items of predecessor scale of the Sensory Processing Measure (SPM) by Parham, Ecker, Miller Kuhaneck, Henry, & Glennon (2007).
Items were subject to expert review; retained only if judged to be adequate representations of function in sensory systems, praxis, and social participation.
Earlier development phases generate confidence in content validity of SPM-P items and scales.
Effect sizes:
SPM-P Raw Scale Scores: Descriptive Statistics and Effect Sizes by Age Group (Glennon et al., 2011)
Scale
Age 2
Ages 3 to 5
Home Form
Social Participation (SOC)
0.38
0.08
Vision (VIS)
0.23
0.05
Hearing (HEA)
0.05
0.01
Touch (TOU)
0.13
0.03
Body Awareness (BOD)
0.19
0.04
Balance & Motion (BAL)
0.11
0.02
Planning & Ideas (PLA)
0.19
0.04
Total Sensory Systems (TOT)
0.18
0.04
Main Classroom Form
Social Participation (SOC)
0.61
0.13
Vision (VIS)
0.36
0.08
Hearing (HEA)
0.31
0.07
Touch (TOU)
0.59
0.12
Body Awareness (BOD)
0.51
0.11
Balance & Motion (BAL)
0.43
0.09
Planning & Ideas (PLA)
0.34
0.07
Total Sensory Systems (TOT)
0.55
0.12
Notes: Data from standardization sample only; Age 2: n = 114. Ages 3 to 5: n = 537; effect size of 0.2 is small, 0.5 is medium, 0.8 is large; effect size refers to the difference between the group mean and the grand mean divided by the pooled standard deviation.
SPM-P Raw Scale Scores: Descriptive Statistics and Effect Sizes by Gender
Scale
Males
Females
Home Form
Social Participation (SOC)
0.12
0.12
Vision (VIS)
0.03
0.03
Hearing (HEA)
0.02
0.02
Touch (TOU)
0.07
0.07
Body Awareness (BOD)
0.15
0.14
Balance & Motion (BAL)
0.03
0.03
Planning & Ideas (PLA)
0.06
0.06
Total Sensory Systems (TOT)
0.05
0.05
Main Classroom Form
Social Participation (SOC)
0.17
0.16
Vision (VIS)
0.14
0.13
Hearing (HEA)
0.10
0.10
Touch (TOU)
0.15
0.14
Body Awareness (BOD)
0.26
0.25
Balance & Motion (BAL)
0.10
0.10
Planning & Ideas (PLA)
0.08
0.08
Total Sensory Systems (TOT)
0.19
0.18
Notes: Data from standardization sample only; Males: n = 319. Females: n = 332; effect size of 0.2 is small, 0.5 is medium, and 0.8 is large; effect size refers to the difference between the group mean and the grand mean divided by the pooled standard deviation.
SPM-P Raw Scale Scores: Descriptive Statistics and Effect Sizes by Ethnicity
Scale
Black
Hispanic
Home Form
Social Participation (SOC)
0.09
0.12
Vision (VIS)
0.07
0.15
Hearing (HEA)
0.07
0.02
Touch (TOU)
0.10
0.09
Body Awareness (BOD)
0.07
0.00
Balance & Motion (BAL)
0.11
0.35
Planning & Ideas (PLA)
0.01
0.14
Total Sensory Systems (TOT)
0.04
0.14
Main Classroom Form
Social Participation (SOC)
0.17
0.04
Vision (VIS)
0.02
0.06
Hearing (HEA)
0.15
0.09
Touch (TOU)
0.25
0.03
Body Awareness (BOD)
0.03
0.17
Balance & Motion (BAL)
0.02
0.10
Planning & Ideas (PLA)
0.13
0.36
Total Sensory Systems (TOT)
0.03
0.05
Notes: Data from standardization sample only; Black: n = 42; Hispanic n = 68; effect size of 0.2 is small, 0.5 is medium, 0.8 is large; effect size refers to the difference between the group mean and the grand mean, divided by the pooled standard deviation.
SPM-P Raw Scale Scores: Descriptive Statistics and Effect Sizes by Parent Educational Attainment
Scale
No High School Degree
High School Graduate
Home Form
Social Participation (SOC)
0.31
0.02
Vision (VIS)
0.03
0.26
Hearing (HEA)
0.09
0.02
Touch (TOU)
0.14
0.04
Body Awareness (BOD)
0.01
0.25
Balance & Motion (BAL)
0.25
0.25
Planning & Ideas (PLA)
0.03
0.03
Total Sensory Systems (TOT)
0.02
0.17
Main Classroom Form
Social Participation (SOC)
0.21
0.02
Vision (VIS)
0.06
0.08
Hearing (HEA)
0.07
0.01
Touch (TOU)
0.10
0.05
Body Awareness (BOD)
0.12
0.07
Balance & Motion (BAL)
0.21
0.05
Planning & Ideas (PLA)
0.13
0.07
Total Sensory Systems (TOT)
0.00
0.07
Notes: Data from standardization sample only; No High School Degree: n = 81; High School Graduate: n = 80; effect size of 0.2 is small, 0.5 is medium, 0.8 is large; effect size refers to the difference between the group mean and the grand mean divided by the pooled standard deviation.
SPM-P Raw Scale Scores: Descriptive Statistics and Effect Sizes by Clinical Disorder
Scale
Sensory Processing
Autism Spectrum
Speech/ Language Impairment
Mental Retardation/ Developmental Delay
Home Form
Social Participation (SOC)
0.61
1.89
0.90
0.99
Vision (VIS)
0.93
1.77
0.88
1.21
Hearing (HEA)
0.93
1.54
0.82
1.07
Touch (TOU)
1.20
1.89
1.03
1.25
Body Awareness (BOD)
1.05
1.76
1.04
1.17
Balance & Motion (BAL)
0.97
1.14
0.92
1.12
Planning & Ideas (PLA)
0.72
1.89
0.76
1.08
Total Sensory Systems (TOT)
1.16
1.92
1.07
1.34
Main Classroom Form
Social Participation (SOC)
1.09
1.75
1.33
1.10
Vision (VIS)
0.75
1.71
1.09
1.07
Hearing (HEA)
0.50
2.08
1.06
1.07
Touch (TOU)
1.16
1.51
1.36
1.14
Body Awareness (BOD)
0.84
1.43
0.90
0.93
Balance & Motion (BAL)
0.85
1.49
0.86
1.23
Planning & Ideas (PLA)
1.40
2.24
1.35
1.23
Total Sensory Systems (TOT)
1.02
1.95
1.25
1.25
Notes: Sensory Processing: n = 22; Autism Spectrum: n = 55; ADHD: n = 25; Mental Retardation/Developmental Delay: n = 92; effect size of 0.2 is small, 0.5 is medium, 0.8 is large; effect size (Cohen’s d) = scale mean in clinical sample minus scale mean in standardization sample divided by pooled standard deviation.
Ayres, A.J. (1979). Sensory integration and the child. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.
Glennon, T.J., Miller Kuhaneck, H., & Herzberg, D. (2011). The Sensory Processing Measure–Preschool (SPM-P)—Part one: Description of the tool and its use in the preschool environment. Journal of Occupational Therapy, Schools, & Early Intervention, 4(1), 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/19411243.2011.573245
Ecker, C., & Parham, L.D. (2010). Sensory Processing Measure–Preschool (SPM-P) Home Form. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.
Hansen, K.D., & Jirikowic, T. (2013). A comparison of the Sensory Profile and Sensory Processing Measure Home Form for children with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 33(4), 440-452. https://doi.org/10.3109/01942638.2013.791914
Olson, C.H., Henry, D.A., Kliner, A.P., Kyllo, A., Richter, C.M., Charley, J., Whitcher, M.C., Reinke, K.R., Tysver, C.H., Wagner, L., & Walworth, J. (2016). Effectiveness and usability of the Sensory Processing Measure-Preschool quick tips: Data-driven intervention following the use of the SPM-Preschool in an early childhood, multiple-case study. Journal of Occupational Therapy, Schools, & Early Intervention, 9(2), 142-162. https://doi.org/10.1080/19411243.2016.1152933
Miller Kuhaneck, H., Henry, D.A., & Glennon, T.J. (2010). Sensory Processing Measure–Preschool (SPM-P) School Form. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.
Miller Kuhaneck, H., Ecker, C., Parham, L.D., Henry, D.A., & Glennon, T.J. (2010). Sensory Processing Measure–Preschool (SPM-P): Manual. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.
We have reviewed more than 500 instruments for use with a number of diagnoses including stroke, spinal cord injury and traumatic brain injury among several others.